niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  Q: A first person account of what exactly? A: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story  Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot? A: There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality  Q: That's interesting, what else can you tell me about the production? A: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does he have regrets about the life he lived?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  Q: A first person account of what exactly? A: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story  Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot? A: There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality  Q: That's interesting, what else can you tell me about the production? A: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me anything more about the film or the director?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  Q: A first person account of what exactly? A: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story  Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot? A: There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality  Q: That's interesting, what else can you tell me about the production? A: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When was this film made?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Well no. The Genie was freed. Therefore he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left. If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third. This would have made the Nile wish pointless either way, since either the Genie was free to deny the wish as he was free, or he was free to deny it because it would have been the fourth wish.  <sep>  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin with the third wish?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well no. The Genie was freed. Therefore he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left. If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third. This would have made the Nile wish pointless either way, since either the Genie was free to deny the wish as he was free, or he was free to deny it because it would have been the fourth wish.  <sep>  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin with the third wish? A: Well no. The Genie was freed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin into using his real last wish?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well no. The Genie was freed. Therefore he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left. If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third. This would have made the Nile wish pointless either way, since either the Genie was free to deny the wish as he was free, or he was free to deny it because it would have been the fourth wish.  <sep>  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin with the third wish? A: Well no. The Genie was freed  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin into using his real last wish? A: he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many wishes did Aladin receive?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well no. The Genie was freed. Therefore he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left. If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third. This would have made the Nile wish pointless either way, since either the Genie was free to deny the wish as he was free, or he was free to deny it because it would have been the fourth wish.  <sep>  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin with the third wish? A: Well no. The Genie was freed  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin into using his real last wish? A: he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left  Q: How many wishes did Aladin receive? A: If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What about when Alladin tricks the Genie into getting him and Abu out of the cave where they are trapped?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well no. The Genie was freed. Therefore he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left. If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third. This would have made the Nile wish pointless either way, since either the Genie was free to deny the wish as he was free, or he was free to deny it because it would have been the fourth wish.  <sep>  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin with the third wish? A: Well no. The Genie was freed  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin into using his real last wish? A: he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left  Q: How many wishes did Aladin receive? A: If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third  Q: What about when Alladin tricks the Genie into getting him and Abu out of the cave where they are trapped? A: the Genie was free to deny the wish  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why didn't he deny it?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: First of all, spoiler-alert! Yes, the movie begins with a slowly zooming shot of the blind antagonist dragging an unconscious Rocky back towards his house, however, there is no trail of blood, just cracks in the dilapidated road and she does not appear to be as injured as you believe. I would provide you with relevant screenshots if I could, but the movie is not yet available for private ownership. This moment in the movie must have happened after he knocks her unconscious when she exits the car where she has trapped his dog. There is no reason to believe that she is bleeding profusely.  <sep>  Q: How does the climax make sense?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: First of all, spoiler-alert! Yes, the movie begins with a slowly zooming shot of the blind antagonist dragging an unconscious Rocky back towards his house, however, there is no trail of blood, just cracks in the dilapidated road and she does not appear to be as injured as you believe. I would provide you with relevant screenshots if I could, but the movie is not yet available for private ownership. This moment in the movie must have happened after he knocks her unconscious when she exits the car where she has trapped his dog. There is no reason to believe that she is bleeding profusely.  <sep>  Q: How does the climax make sense? A: I would provide you with relevant screenshots if I could, but the movie is not yet available for private ownership  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: From the beginning scene, it seems that Rocky was fatally hurt, so how was it possible for her to leave with her daughter so soon after the incident?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: First of all, spoiler-alert! Yes, the movie begins with a slowly zooming shot of the blind antagonist dragging an unconscious Rocky back towards his house, however, there is no trail of blood, just cracks in the dilapidated road and she does not appear to be as injured as you believe. I would provide you with relevant screenshots if I could, but the movie is not yet available for private ownership. This moment in the movie must have happened after he knocks her unconscious when she exits the car where she has trapped his dog. There is no reason to believe that she is bleeding profusely.  <sep>  Q: How does the climax make sense? A: I would provide you with relevant screenshots if I could, but the movie is not yet available for private ownership  Q: From the beginning scene, it seems that Rocky was fatally hurt, so how was it possible for her to leave with her daughter so soon after the incident? A: This moment in the movie must have happened after he knocks her unconscious when she exits the car where she has trapped his dog  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was she hurt when he knocks her unconscious?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: First of all, spoiler-alert! Yes, the movie begins with a slowly zooming shot of the blind antagonist dragging an unconscious Rocky back towards his house, however, there is no trail of blood, just cracks in the dilapidated road and she does not appear to be as injured as you believe. I would provide you with relevant screenshots if I could, but the movie is not yet available for private ownership. This moment in the movie must have happened after he knocks her unconscious when she exits the car where she has trapped his dog. There is no reason to believe that she is bleeding profusely.  <sep>  Q: How does the climax make sense? A: I would provide you with relevant screenshots if I could, but the movie is not yet available for private ownership  Q: From the beginning scene, it seems that Rocky was fatally hurt, so how was it possible for her to leave with her daughter so soon after the incident? A: This moment in the movie must have happened after he knocks her unconscious when she exits the car where she has trapped his dog  Q: Was she hurt when he knocks her unconscious? A: There is no reason to believe that she is bleeding profusely  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: IT seems that Rocky was fatally hurt, so how was it possible for her to leave with her daughter without medical assistance?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because appearing dead is not the same as being dead. Firstly, we do not know the extent of the shape-shifting abilities of the Faceless Men but these appear to be based on appearing as something other than what you are. The Dead are targeting the living and there is no indication that the abilities of the Faceless Men can make you be sensed as "unliving" to the Dead. Essentially, if Arya is alive, she's targeted by the Dead, regardless of what she looks like.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Arya use the powers of The Faceless Men to get past the dead in the library?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because appearing dead is not the same as being dead. Firstly, we do not know the extent of the shape-shifting abilities of the Faceless Men but these appear to be based on appearing as something other than what you are. The Dead are targeting the living and there is no indication that the abilities of the Faceless Men can make you be sensed as "unliving" to the Dead. Essentially, if Arya is alive, she's targeted by the Dead, regardless of what she looks like.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Arya use the powers of The Faceless Men to get past the dead in the library? A: Because appearing dead is not the same as being dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How would the dead know if each other were dead?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because appearing dead is not the same as being dead. Firstly, we do not know the extent of the shape-shifting abilities of the Faceless Men but these appear to be based on appearing as something other than what you are. The Dead are targeting the living and there is no indication that the abilities of the Faceless Men can make you be sensed as "unliving" to the Dead. Essentially, if Arya is alive, she's targeted by the Dead, regardless of what she looks like.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Arya use the powers of The Faceless Men to get past the dead in the library? A: Because appearing dead is not the same as being dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So the dead have sentience?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Because appearing dead is not the same as being dead. Firstly, we do not know the extent of the shape-shifting abilities of the Faceless Men but these appear to be based on appearing as something other than what you are. The Dead are targeting the living and there is no indication that the abilities of the Faceless Men can make you be sensed as "unliving" to the Dead. Essentially, if Arya is alive, she's targeted by the Dead, regardless of what she looks like.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Arya use the powers of The Faceless Men to get past the dead in the library? A: Because appearing dead is not the same as being dead  Q: How would the dead know if each other were dead? A: The Dead are targeting the living and there is no indication that the abilities of the Faceless Men can make you be sensed as "unliving" to the Dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was her being terrified part of the problem as well?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It's a comedy. The cakes were blatantly shaped as escape tools, but due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes he so often received, the guards stupidly decide not to cut into them so as not to spoil the presentation, despite the fact that they clearly contain contraband.  <sep>  Q: Why does the guard not check the pastries?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a comedy. The cakes were blatantly shaped as escape tools, but due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes he so often received, the guards stupidly decide not to cut into them so as not to spoil the presentation, despite the fact that they clearly contain contraband.  <sep>  Q: Why does the guard not check the pastries? A: due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why are the cakes high quality and what makes them so special?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It's a comedy. The cakes were blatantly shaped as escape tools, but due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes he so often received, the guards stupidly decide not to cut into them so as not to spoil the presentation, despite the fact that they clearly contain contraband.  <sep>  Q: Why does the guard not check the pastries? A: due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: can you tell me more about M. Gustave?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It's a comedy. The cakes were blatantly shaped as escape tools, but due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes he so often received, the guards stupidly decide not to cut into them so as not to spoil the presentation, despite the fact that they clearly contain contraband.  <sep>  Q: Why does the guard not check the pastries? A: due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what else can you tell me about the Grand Budapest Hotel?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures. First and most important, he was with Police Captain Mark McCluskey, who was on his payroll. Those days no one dared to do anything to a policeman, especially a Captain. It means bringing wrath of force and media on the whole family. Second, Micheal was checked for arms/guns or weapons while in the car sent by Solozzo. So, he was not supposed to have gun. The only man with a gun was the Captain, who was on Solozzo's side. Thirdly, Micheal was not even supposed to know where they were meeting until the end. Solozzo was confident that he could not plant a weapon or a man at the meeting place. The Corleone family got this information by paying some man from the Solozzo gang. Fourth, Micheal did not seem that harmful, as he recently joined family that to be until Don was in hospital. In fact, he was not involved in family business that time. All the above conclude that the only man who was at risk was Micheal. The countermeasures taken by Micheal for having a place with people, it works both ways. Micheal was also not supposed to be able to kill in front of people.  <sep>  Q: Why did Sollozzo risk it?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures. First and most important, he was with Police Captain Mark McCluskey, who was on his payroll. Those days no one dared to do anything to a policeman, especially a Captain. It means bringing wrath of force and media on the whole family. Second, Micheal was checked for arms/guns or weapons while in the car sent by Solozzo. So, he was not supposed to have gun. The only man with a gun was the Captain, who was on Solozzo's side. Thirdly, Micheal was not even supposed to know where they were meeting until the end. Solozzo was confident that he could not plant a weapon or a man at the meeting place. The Corleone family got this information by paying some man from the Solozzo gang. Fourth, Micheal did not seem that harmful, as he recently joined family that to be until Don was in hospital. In fact, he was not involved in family business that time. All the above conclude that the only man who was at risk was Micheal. The countermeasures taken by Micheal for having a place with people, it works both ways. Micheal was also not supposed to be able to kill in front of people.  <sep>  Q: Why did Sollozzo risk it? A: the only man who was at risk was Micheal  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So why didn't Sollozzo put any counter measures for such a "Just in-case" scenario?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures. First and most important, he was with Police Captain Mark McCluskey, who was on his payroll. Those days no one dared to do anything to a policeman, especially a Captain. It means bringing wrath of force and media on the whole family. Second, Micheal was checked for arms/guns or weapons while in the car sent by Solozzo. So, he was not supposed to have gun. The only man with a gun was the Captain, who was on Solozzo's side. Thirdly, Micheal was not even supposed to know where they were meeting until the end. Solozzo was confident that he could not plant a weapon or a man at the meeting place. The Corleone family got this information by paying some man from the Solozzo gang. Fourth, Micheal did not seem that harmful, as he recently joined family that to be until Don was in hospital. In fact, he was not involved in family business that time. All the above conclude that the only man who was at risk was Micheal. The countermeasures taken by Micheal for having a place with people, it works both ways. Micheal was also not supposed to be able to kill in front of people.  <sep>  Q: Why did Sollozzo risk it? A: the only man who was at risk was Micheal  Q: So why didn't Sollozzo put any counter measures for such a "Just in-case" scenario? A: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What countermeasures does Solozzo put in place?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures. First and most important, he was with Police Captain Mark McCluskey, who was on his payroll. Those days no one dared to do anything to a policeman, especially a Captain. It means bringing wrath of force and media on the whole family. Second, Micheal was checked for arms/guns or weapons while in the car sent by Solozzo. So, he was not supposed to have gun. The only man with a gun was the Captain, who was on Solozzo's side. Thirdly, Micheal was not even supposed to know where they were meeting until the end. Solozzo was confident that he could not plant a weapon or a man at the meeting place. The Corleone family got this information by paying some man from the Solozzo gang. Fourth, Micheal did not seem that harmful, as he recently joined family that to be until Don was in hospital. In fact, he was not involved in family business that time. All the above conclude that the only man who was at risk was Micheal. The countermeasures taken by Micheal for having a place with people, it works both ways. Micheal was also not supposed to be able to kill in front of people.  <sep>  Q: Why did Sollozzo risk it? A: the only man who was at risk was Micheal  Q: So why didn't Sollozzo put any counter measures for such a "Just in-case" scenario? A: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures  Q: What countermeasures does Solozzo put in place? A: First and most important, he was with Police Captain Mark McCluskey, who was on his payroll  Q: Was there any other counter measures? A: Second, Micheal was checked for arms/guns or weapons while in the car sent by Solozzo  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Interesting, who else was on his payroll besides the police Captain?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures. First and most important, he was with Police Captain Mark McCluskey, who was on his payroll. Those days no one dared to do anything to a policeman, especially a Captain. It means bringing wrath of force and media on the whole family. Second, Micheal was checked for arms/guns or weapons while in the car sent by Solozzo. So, he was not supposed to have gun. The only man with a gun was the Captain, who was on Solozzo's side. Thirdly, Micheal was not even supposed to know where they were meeting until the end. Solozzo was confident that he could not plant a weapon or a man at the meeting place. The Corleone family got this information by paying some man from the Solozzo gang. Fourth, Micheal did not seem that harmful, as he recently joined family that to be until Don was in hospital. In fact, he was not involved in family business that time. All the above conclude that the only man who was at risk was Micheal. The countermeasures taken by Micheal for having a place with people, it works both ways. Micheal was also not supposed to be able to kill in front of people.  <sep>  Q: Why did Sollozzo risk it? A: the only man who was at risk was Micheal  Q: So why didn't Sollozzo put any counter measures for such a "Just in-case" scenario? A: Solozzo indeed puts in place many countermeasures  Q: What countermeasures does Solozzo put in place? A: First and most important, he was with Police Captain Mark McCluskey, who was on his payroll  Q: Was there any other counter measures? A: Second, Micheal was checked for arms/guns or weapons while in the car sent by Solozzo  Q: Interesting, who else was on his payroll besides the police Captain? A: The Corleone family  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there anything else you can tell me about the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23. Sometimes when a TV movie is shot ahead of a series, actors only sign contracts for the one appearance. In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series. He also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  <sep>  Q: Why was the game designer actor replaced in the show "Level Up"?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23. Sometimes when a TV movie is shot ahead of a series, actors only sign contracts for the one appearance. In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series. He also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  <sep>  Q: Why was the game designer actor replaced in the show "Level Up"? A: actors only sign contracts for the one appearance  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do they do this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23. Sometimes when a TV movie is shot ahead of a series, actors only sign contracts for the one appearance. In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series. He also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  <sep>  Q: Why was the game designer actor replaced in the show "Level Up"? A: actors only sign contracts for the one appearance  Q: Why do they do this? A: In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: It seems only one actor was replaced, is this for a particular reason?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23. Sometimes when a TV movie is shot ahead of a series, actors only sign contracts for the one appearance. In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series. He also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  <sep>  Q: Why was the game designer actor replaced in the show "Level Up"? A: actors only sign contracts for the one appearance  Q: Why do they do this? A: In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series  Q: It seems only one actor was replaced, is this for a particular reason? A: also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there a reason the actor was changed from the movie to the series?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23. Sometimes when a TV movie is shot ahead of a series, actors only sign contracts for the one appearance. In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series. He also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  <sep>  Q: Why was the game designer actor replaced in the show "Level Up"? A: actors only sign contracts for the one appearance  Q: Why do they do this? A: In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series  Q: It seems only one actor was replaced, is this for a particular reason? A: also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  Q: Is there a reason the actor was changed from the movie to the series? A: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why couldn't he do both?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23. Sometimes when a TV movie is shot ahead of a series, actors only sign contracts for the one appearance. In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series. He also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  <sep>  Q: Why was the game designer actor replaced in the show "Level Up"? A: actors only sign contracts for the one appearance  Q: Why do they do this? A: In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series  Q: It seems only one actor was replaced, is this for a particular reason? A: also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D  Q: Is there a reason the actor was changed from the movie to the series? A: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23  Q: Why couldn't he do both? A: Eric Andre  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he busy on other projects?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Tom Dougherty: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department. Miss Kringle found the note about him leaving Gotham which Nygma forged. Gotham is a city where crime is at its peak, and a police officer running away like that doesn't seem surprising. Kristen Kringle: Nygma was trustworthy until then and was dating Kringle, so when he told Leslie Thompkins that Kringle had reconciled her relationship with Dougherty and left Gotham, she trusted him. People just trusted what Nygma told them, because they thought he was trustworthy. And we don't know about their families; they might have had no-one of their own, it's possible in a city where people die so frequently. Plus, they work in a police station which is always too busy to care about them.  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't anyone care about the whereabouts of Miss Kringle and Tom Dougherty?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Tom Dougherty: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department. Miss Kringle found the note about him leaving Gotham which Nygma forged. Gotham is a city where crime is at its peak, and a police officer running away like that doesn't seem surprising. Kristen Kringle: Nygma was trustworthy until then and was dating Kringle, so when he told Leslie Thompkins that Kringle had reconciled her relationship with Dougherty and left Gotham, she trusted him. People just trusted what Nygma told them, because they thought he was trustworthy. And we don't know about their families; they might have had no-one of their own, it's possible in a city where people die so frequently. Plus, they work in a police station which is always too busy to care about them.  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't anyone care about the whereabouts of Miss Kringle and Tom Dougherty? A: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what else can you tell me about him?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Tom Dougherty: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department. Miss Kringle found the note about him leaving Gotham which Nygma forged. Gotham is a city where crime is at its peak, and a police officer running away like that doesn't seem surprising. Kristen Kringle: Nygma was trustworthy until then and was dating Kringle, so when he told Leslie Thompkins that Kringle had reconciled her relationship with Dougherty and left Gotham, she trusted him. People just trusted what Nygma told them, because they thought he was trustworthy. And we don't know about their families; they might have had no-one of their own, it's possible in a city where people die so frequently. Plus, they work in a police station which is always too busy to care about them.  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't anyone care about the whereabouts of Miss Kringle and Tom Dougherty? A: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department  Q: what else can you tell me about him? A: Miss Kringle found the note about him leaving Gotham which Nygma forged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you know about Miss Kringle?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Tom Dougherty: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department. Miss Kringle found the note about him leaving Gotham which Nygma forged. Gotham is a city where crime is at its peak, and a police officer running away like that doesn't seem surprising. Kristen Kringle: Nygma was trustworthy until then and was dating Kringle, so when he told Leslie Thompkins that Kringle had reconciled her relationship with Dougherty and left Gotham, she trusted him. People just trusted what Nygma told them, because they thought he was trustworthy. And we don't know about their families; they might have had no-one of their own, it's possible in a city where people die so frequently. Plus, they work in a police station which is always too busy to care about them.  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't anyone care about the whereabouts of Miss Kringle and Tom Dougherty? A: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department  Q: what else can you tell me about him? A: Miss Kringle found the note about him leaving Gotham which Nygma forged  Q: What do you know about Miss Kringle? A: Kringle had reconciled her relationship with Dougherty and left Gotham  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: can you tell me anything else at all?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Tom Dougherty: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department. Miss Kringle found the note about him leaving Gotham which Nygma forged. Gotham is a city where crime is at its peak, and a police officer running away like that doesn't seem surprising. Kristen Kringle: Nygma was trustworthy until then and was dating Kringle, so when he told Leslie Thompkins that Kringle had reconciled her relationship with Dougherty and left Gotham, she trusted him. People just trusted what Nygma told them, because they thought he was trustworthy. And we don't know about their families; they might have had no-one of their own, it's possible in a city where people die so frequently. Plus, they work in a police station which is always too busy to care about them.  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't anyone care about the whereabouts of Miss Kringle and Tom Dougherty? A: He was a douchebag and doesn't seems to have many friends in the department  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In what respect was he a douchebag?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He was the stand-in photographer, implying that, having discovered that his target was to attend the wedding he put things in motion to ensure that he would be there. The women were all employees of his target. By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack. Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man. Perhaps some ill-considered pillow-talk.  <sep>  Q: What is the connection between the cases in "The Sign of Three"
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He was the stand-in photographer, implying that, having discovered that his target was to attend the wedding he put things in motion to ensure that he would be there. The women were all employees of his target. By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack. Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man. Perhaps some ill-considered pillow-talk.  <sep>  Q: What is the connection between the cases in "The Sign of Three" A: The women were all employees of his target  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you know about the Mayfly man?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He was the stand-in photographer, implying that, having discovered that his target was to attend the wedding he put things in motion to ensure that he would be there. The women were all employees of his target. By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack. Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man. Perhaps some ill-considered pillow-talk.  <sep>  Q: What is the connection between the cases in "The Sign of Three" A: The women were all employees of his target  Q: What do you know about the Mayfly man? A: He was the stand-in photographer  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Tessa not invited to the wedding?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He was the stand-in photographer, implying that, having discovered that his target was to attend the wedding he put things in motion to ensure that he would be there. The women were all employees of his target. By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack. Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man. Perhaps some ill-considered pillow-talk.  <sep>  Q: What is the connection between the cases in "The Sign of Three" A: The women were all employees of his target  Q: What do you know about the Mayfly man? A: He was the stand-in photographer  Q: Why was Tessa not invited to the wedding? A: Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He was the stand-in photographer, implying that, having discovered that his target was to attend the wedding he put things in motion to ensure that he would be there. The women were all employees of his target. By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack. Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man. Perhaps some ill-considered pillow-talk.  <sep>  Q: What is the connection between the cases in "The Sign of Three" A: The women were all employees of his target  Q: What do you know about the Mayfly man? A: He was the stand-in photographer  Q: Why was Tessa not invited to the wedding? A: Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man  Q: What else can you tell me? A: By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Thank you - is there anything else I should know about the film?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven? A: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was he thought to be insane, other than the murder? Why not just a killer?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven? A: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven  Q: Why was he thought to be insane, other than the murder? Why not just a killer? A: The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he ever recover from his insanity?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven? A: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven  Q: Why was he thought to be insane, other than the murder? Why not just a killer? A: The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane  Q: Did he ever recover from his insanity? A: he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he innocent all along then?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven? A: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven  Q: Why was he thought to be insane, other than the murder? Why not just a killer? A: The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane  Q: Did he ever recover from his insanity? A: he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family  Q: Was he innocent all along then? A: He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me anything else about the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No. The 1994 version was based off of Norse mythology, as the wearer of the mask became a reincarnation of Loki (yes, the same Loki from Thor/The Avengers fame, and a bonafide prankster) whereas the 1961 Mask was a psychological thriller/horror movie where the wearer of the mask was slowly driven insane. There is a fine line between becoming a prankster and committing murder, but the line exists, nonetheless. However, in a larger context, the 1994 movie was based on the Dark Horse comic of the same name, which shared a closer storyline with the 1961 movie. The 1994 version was also intended to be a horror series, but the story was changed along the way. So, in some cases they are, in fact, related.  <sep>  Q: Was the The Mask 1994 (and subsequent cartoon) inspired by The Mask 1961
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No. The 1994 version was based off of Norse mythology, as the wearer of the mask became a reincarnation of Loki (yes, the same Loki from Thor/The Avengers fame, and a bonafide prankster) whereas the 1961 Mask was a psychological thriller/horror movie where the wearer of the mask was slowly driven insane. There is a fine line between becoming a prankster and committing murder, but the line exists, nonetheless. However, in a larger context, the 1994 movie was based on the Dark Horse comic of the same name, which shared a closer storyline with the 1961 movie. The 1994 version was also intended to be a horror series, but the story was changed along the way. So, in some cases they are, in fact, related.  <sep>  Q: Was the The Mask 1994 (and subsequent cartoon) inspired by The Mask 1961 A: No. The 1994 version was based off of Norse mythology  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Norse mythology, how did this shape the film?
Output: Yes